flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() |
Author |
|
mindcooler
Where can you check minimum operating system for WinAPI calls nowadays? MSDN has set all to 2000+ when they dropped 9x support.. :/
..and I'm pretty sure you could create windows before w2k. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms632679%28VS.85%29.aspx _________________ This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. |
|||
![]() |
|
vid
Try to look for old SDK somewhere.
|
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler
vid, Can't seem to find any old Platform SDKs, going to check out the latest one.
baldr, I don't understand your reply. _________________ This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. |
|||
![]() |
|
baldr
mindcooler,
It happens. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
vid
Things like this doesn't work anymore?
|
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler
So I guess I should try to find an SDK from 1998-2000 to see which calls are 9x+?
|
|||
![]() |
|
b1528932
just download windows 95 and run it under hypervisor, get all dlls and dump their exported names.
|
|||
![]() |
|
f0dder
b1528932 wrote: just download windows 95 and run it under hypervisor, get all dlls and dump their exported names. You'll probably want to find the last .chm release of the PlatformSDK if you need to support older versions of Windows... and good lucking finding those anywhere official >_<. There's a post either here or at asmcommunity mentioning the exact version of the last .chm version, but I couldn't find the post with "I'm a bit preoccupied with other stuff" lazy searches, and last time I went hunting Microsoft had pulled all the .chm PSDK downloads offline. I have one of the later (but possibly not the latest) .chm PSDKs lying around in old backup archives; if not available elsewhere, I could probably put it on rapidshare or wherever; probably breaches the end-user license, but I doubt anybody would really care. _________________ ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
vid
Quote: So I guess I should try to find an SDK from 1998-2000 to see which calls are 9x+? 2003 SDK should still have 9x compatibility information, shouldn't it? But I agree f0dders way would be the best - those .chm PSDK docs were the best thing, back then. |
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler
Isn't the fasm shipped includes 9x only? Perhaps I can use them as a reference.
|
|||
![]() |
|
baldr
mindcooler,
Some alignment issues, and you're done. |
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler
Alignment issues?
|
|||
![]() |
|
baldr
mindcooler,
Straightforward translation of structures from C headers to fasm often disregards alignment requirements for multi-byte fields and padding of structure to meet sizeof requirements. |
|||
![]() |
|
SFeLi
vid wrote: 2003 SDK should still have 9x compatibility information, shouldn't it? Yes, 2003 SDK contains all needed information about 9x and despite beeing .hxs not .chm, it works fine on my 9x machine. |
|||
![]() |
|
mindcooler
OK, I'm giving 2003 a shot
_________________ This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. |
|||
![]() |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.
Website powered by rwasa.